<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>---Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.

Asked about concerns that people were being searched because of the colour of their skin, Dick said: “We need to fight that perception; we are absolutely not doing that. It has no place in modern policing. Our outcome rate – one in three positive – is the same whether you are black, white or whoever you are.”---

As with much of what Cressida Dick says I don't understand this comment. She seems to think it implies something it doesn't.

A high proportion of young people take drugs if the police randomly stop people it is likely that a significant proportion will have drugs on them.

There may be no difference between how many young black people take drugs and how many white people take drugs but if you stop 6 times as many black youths you will end up with 6 times as many black people convicted for possession of drugs.

If she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crime I'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black community if the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.

Post by NickIf she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crimeI'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black communityif the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.

The problem is devil and deep blue sea.

The *best* approach would be to only charge people stopped withpossession of a knife, and leave all else alone.

However, you can already hear the hysterics of the Mail, Express etc, ifit were to be revealed that police were not charging people found with(for example) a small amount of cannabis as a result of a search for aknife.

So the police would end up having to charge people for everything theyfind. Be it a knife, acid, or a spliff. Thus leading to no one trustingthe police (again).

Post by NickIf she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crimeI'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black communityif the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.

The problem is devil and deep blue sea.The *best* approach would be to only charge people stopped withpossession of a knife, and leave all else alone.However, you can already hear the hysterics of the Mail, Express etc, ifit were to be revealed that police were not charging people found with(for example) a small amount of cannabis as a result of a search for aknife.So the police would end up having to charge people for everything theyfind.

This inference is only correct if the intermediate, unspoken premise"The police must always end up doing what the Mail Express etc say theyshould do" is true. If it is, then that's what we need to change.

Post by Jethro_ukBe it a knife, acid, or a spliff. Thus leading to no one trustingthe police (again).

Post by NickIf she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crimeI'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black communityif the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.

The problem is devil and deep blue sea.The *best* approach would be to only charge people stopped withpossession of a knife, and leave all else alone.

Police ignoring small amounts of Cannabis is the norm'.

Post by Jethro_ukHowever, you can already hear the hysterics of the Mail, Express etc, ifit were to be revealed that police were not charging people found with(for example) a small amount of cannabis as a result of a search for aknife.So the police would end up having to charge people for everything theyfind. Be it a knife, acid, or a spliff. Thus leading to no one trustingthe police (again).

Post by NickIf she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crimeI'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black communityif the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.

The problem is devil and deep blue sea.The *best* approach would be to only charge people stopped withpossession of a knife, and leave all else alone.

Post by NickIf she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crimeI'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black communityif the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.

The problem is devil and deep blue sea.The *best* approach would be to only charge people stopped withpossession of a knife, and leave all else alone.

Police ignoring small amounts of Cannabis is the norm'.

but is it the nick?

In the 60s it was a three way split whether they put it back in yourpocket, took it for their own use or nicked you!

Post by NickIf she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crimeI'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black communityif the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.

The problem is devil and deep blue sea.The *best* approach would be to only charge people stopped withpossession of a knife, and leave all else alone.

Obvious to me, obvious to you. I don't know about you but I wouldn'tclassify myself as super smart so it should have occurred to at leastone of Dick's advisers and it should have occurred to the personinterviewing her. No wonder the young have lost respect for the MSM.

Post by Jethro_ukHowever, you can already hear the hysterics of the Mail, Express etc, ifit were to be revealed that police were not charging people found with(for example) a small amount of cannabis as a result of a search for aknife.

I don't buy that. I think drugs have lost their demon status.

I suspect it is more that the officers feel they need to have ajustification for stopping someone. Something like performance metrics.Somewhere the logic goes that if they find drugs the speculative stopand search is justifiable and hence the community should accept it.

All it really needs is for someone with a brain to intervene.

Post by Jethro_ukSo the police would end up having to charge people for everything theyfind. Be it a knife, acid, or a spliff. Thus leading to no one trustingthe police (again).

Post by NickIf she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crimeI'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black communityif the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.

The problem is devil and deep blue sea.The *best* approach would be to only charge people stopped withpossession of a knife, and leave all else alone.However, you can already hear the hysterics of the Mail, Express etc, ifit were to be revealed that police were not charging people found with(for example) a small amount of cannabis as a result of a search for aknife.So the police would end up having to charge people for everything theyfind. Be it a knife, acid, or a spliff. Thus leading to no one trustingthe police (again).

I know what you mean.

I have learned not to trust the police to properly enforce the law onillegal drug possession.

Post by NickIf she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crimeI'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black communityif the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.

The problem is devil and deep blue sea.The *best* approach would be to only charge people stopped withpossession of a knife, and leave all else alone.However, you can already hear the hysterics of the Mail, Express etc, ifit were to be revealed that police were not charging people found with(for example) a small amount of cannabis as a result of a search for aknife.So the police would end up having to charge people for everything theyfind. Be it a knife, acid, or a spliff. Thus leading to no one trustingthe police (again).

I know what you mean.I have learned not to trust the police to properly enforce the law onillegal drug possession.

:)

It is strange that they are instructed to turn a blind eye to it.What's the point of having laws if they aren't enforced?

Post by NickIf she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crimeI'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black communityif the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.

The problem is devil and deep blue sea.The *best* approach would be to only charge people stopped withpossession of a knife, and leave all else alone.However, you can already hear the hysterics of the Mail, Express etc, ifit were to be revealed that police were not charging people found with(for example) a small amount of cannabis as a result of a search for aknife.So the police would end up having to charge people for everything theyfind. Be it a knife, acid, or a spliff. Thus leading to no one trustingthe police (again).

I know what you mean.I have learned not to trust the police to properly enforce the law onillegal drug possession.

:)It is strange that they are instructed to turn a blind eye to it. What'sthe point of having laws if they aren't enforced?

Exactly.

I would be content to see every - even quite minor - infraction punishedwith a custodial sentence, no matter how brief it may be in respect ofpossession of a "personal use" amount (for a first offence, at least).

Post by NickIf she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crimeI'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black communityif the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.

The problem is devil and deep blue sea.The *best* approach would be to only charge people stopped withpossession of a knife, and leave all else alone.However, you can already hear the hysterics of the Mail, Express etc, ifit were to be revealed that police were not charging people found with(for example) a small amount of cannabis as a result of a search for aknife.So the police would end up having to charge people for everything theyfind. Be it a knife, acid, or a spliff. Thus leading to no one trustingthe police (again).

I know what you mean.I have learned not to trust the police to properly enforce the law onillegal drug possession.

:)It is strange that they are instructed to turn a blind eye to it. What'sthe point of having laws if they aren't enforced?

Exactly.I would be content to see every - even quite minor - infraction punishedwith a custodial sentence, no matter how brief it may be in respect ofpossession of a "personal use" amount (for a first offence, at least).It isn't something you can easily do inadvertently, like doing 33mph.

Post by Nick<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>---Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.Asked about concerns that people were being searched because of the colour of their skin, Dick said: “We need to fight that perception; we are absolutely not doing that. It has no place in modern policing. Our outcome rate – one in three positive – is the same whether you are black, white or whoever you are.”---As with much of what Cressida Dick says I don't understand this comment. She seems to think it implies something it doesn't.A high proportion of young people take drugs if the police randomly stop people it is likely that a significant proportion will have drugs on them.There may be no difference between how many young black people take drugs and how many white people take drugs but if you stop 6 times as many black youths you will end up with 6 times as many black people convicted for possession of drugs.If she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crime I'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black community if the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.

Post by Nick<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>---Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.Asked about concerns that people were being searched because of the colour of their skin, Dick said: “We need to fight that perception; we are absolutely not doing that. It has no place in modern policing. Our outcome rate – one in three positive – is the same whether you are black, white or whoever you are.”---As with much of what Cressida Dick says I don't understand this comment. She seems to think it implies something it doesn't.

Well I can't see why! It seems crystal clear to me.

If the entire body of suspects subjected to stop and search then a certain proportion will yield a positive result i.e. will be found to be carrying something they shouldn't be.

If the entire group were divided in to sub-groups (say black, white, brown, youth, adult etc.) and the results re-scrutinised then it would be found that exactly (more or less) the same proportion within any of these sub-groups will be found.

This is taken as evidence that the process of selecting candidates for a search is non-discriminatory in every respect. There is one overriding reason for this. There is no point in an officer searching anyone who he does not believe to be suspicious. All that does is create anger and antipathy in subjects and can only yield nothing of note.

Post by NickA high proportion of young people take drugs if the police randomly stop people it is likely that a significant proportion will have drugs on them.There may be no difference between how many young black people take drugs and how many white people take drugs but if you stop 6 times as many black youths you will end up with 6 times as many black people convicted for possession of drugs.If she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crime I'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black community if the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.

Carrying drugs is just as illegal as carrying a knife. In fact there is a large number of items that one should not be carrying. Going equipped for house breaking is one group. In possession of stolen property is another,

All kinds of objects substances and items in one's possession can bring one into conflict with the law.

There is no tolerable limit of street narcotics that can be carried with impunity. However, how you will be treated when something is found will differ. If you are found with anything that can clearly be construed as a weapon without reasonable cause, you most certainly will be arrested. It will be a court that will be the final arbiter as to your intent n possessing such an object.

Similarly if you are found with a large quantity of drugs you again will be arrested. However,

Post by Nick<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>---Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.Asked about concerns that people were being searched because of the colour of their skin, Dick said: “We need to fight that perception; we are absolutely not doing that. It has no place in modern policing. Our outcome rate – one in three positive – is the same whether you are black, white or whoever you are.”---As with much of what Cressida Dick says I don't understand this comment. She seems to think it implies something it doesn't.

Well I can't see why! It seems crystal clear to me.If the entire body of suspects subjected to stop and search then a certain proportion will yield a positive result i.e. will be found to be carrying something they shouldn't be.If the entire group were divided in to sub-groups (say black, white, brown, youth, adult etc.) and the results re-scrutinised then it would be found that exactly (more or less) the same proportion within any of these sub-groups will be found.This is taken as evidence that the process of selecting candidates for a search is non-discriminatory in every respect. There is one overriding reason for this. There is no point in an officer searching anyone who he does not believe to be suspicious. All that does is create anger and antipathy in subjects and can only yield nothing of note.

Post by NickA high proportion of young people take drugs if the police randomly stop people it is likely that a significant proportion will have drugs on them.There may be no difference between how many young black people take drugs and how many white people take drugs but if you stop 6 times as many black youths you will end up with 6 times as many black people convicted for possession of drugs.If she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crime I'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black community if the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.

Carrying drugs is just as illegal as carrying a knife. In fact there is a large number of items that one should not be carrying. Going equipped for house breaking is one group. In possession of stolen property is another,All kinds of objects substances and items in one's possession can bring one into conflict with the law.There is no tolerable limit of street narcotics that can be carried with impunity. However, how you will be treated when something is found will differ. If you are found with anything that can clearly be construed as a weapon without reasonable cause, you most certainly will be arrested. It will be a court that will be the final arbiter as to your intent n possessing such an object.Similarly if you are found with a large quantity of drugs you again will be arrested. However,

(Whoops! Sorry - try again)}

Post by m***@btopenworld.comSimilarly if you are found with a large quantity of drugs you again will be arrested on suspicion of dealing . However, if the amount found is small and relatively benign, e.g. a small bag of cannabis, then you might get away with a verbal warning or issued with a street penalty which means you receive a more formal caution and are required to pay a financial penalty within a specified time. If you have already received a street warning in the recent past then you will be arrested. There is no permissible amount of prohibited substance the law allows you to carry.

Post by Nick<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>---Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.Asked about concerns that people were being searched because of the colour of their skin, Dick said: “We need to fight that perception; we are absolutely not doing that. It has no place in modern policing. Our outcome rate – one in three positive – is the same whether you are black, white or whoever you are.”---As with much of what Cressida Dick says I don't understand this comment. She seems to think it implies something it doesn't.

Well I can't see why! It seems crystal clear to me.If the entire body of suspects subjected to stop and search then a certain proportion will yield a positive result i.e. will be found to be carrying something they shouldn't be.If the entire group were divided in to sub-groups (say black, white, brown, youth, adult etc.) and the results re-scrutinised then it would be found that exactly (more or less) the same proportion within any of these sub-groups will be found. >This is taken as evidence that the process of selecting candidates for a search is non-discriminatory in every respect.

It might be presented as such to deceive the feeble minded but theredoesn't seem to be any logical reason to believe it impliesnon-discrimination.

Post by Nick<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>---Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.Asked about concerns that people were being searched because of the colour of their skin, Dick said: “We need to fight that perception; we are absolutely not doing that. It has no place in modern policing. Our outcome rate – one in three positive – is the same whether you are black, white or whoever you are.”---As with much of what Cressida Dick says I don't understand this comment. She seems to think it implies something it doesn't.

Well I can't see why! It seems crystal clear to me.If the entire body of suspects subjected to stop and search then a certain proportion will yield a positive result i.e. will be found to be carrying something they shouldn't be.If the entire group were divided in to sub-groups (say black, white, brown, youth, adult etc.) and the results re-scrutinised then it would be found that exactly (more or less) the same proportion within any of these sub-groups will be found. >This is taken as evidence that the process of selecting candidates for a search is non-discriminatory in every respect.

It might be presented as such to deceive the feeble minded but theredoesn't seem to be any logical reason to believe it impliesnon-discrimination.

of course it does and it is a question of statistics rather than logic. If a certain %ge of a group behave in a certain way and then the group is divided into two sub-groups on the basis of some criterion or another and the same %ge of each sub-group behaves in the same way then this shows that the criterion used to select the sub-groups represents a non causal factor. Otherwise, the criterion used represent a causal factor at work.

Think of a die being thrown. If it fall upon six say ten times in a row then that is an indication that the die is somehow loaded.

Post by Nick<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>---Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.Asked about concerns that people were being searched because of the colour of their skin, Dick said: “We need to fight that perception; we are absolutely not doing that. It has no place in modern policing. Our outcome rate – one in three positive – is the same whether you are black, white or whoever you are.”---As with much of what Cressida Dick says I don't understand this comment. She seems to think it implies something it doesn't.

Well I can't see why! It seems crystal clear to me.If the entire body of suspects subjected to stop and search then a certain proportion will yield a positive result i.e. will be found to be carrying something they shouldn't be.If the entire group were divided in to sub-groups (say black, white, brown, youth, adult etc.) and the results re-scrutinised then it would be found that exactly (more or less) the same proportion within any of these sub-groups will be found. >This is taken as evidence that the process of selecting candidates for a search is non-discriminatory in every respect.

It might be presented as such to deceive the feeble minded but theredoesn't seem to be any logical reason to believe it impliesnon-discrimination.

of course it does and it is a question of statistics rather than logic. If a certain %ge of a group behave in a certain way and then the group is divided into two sub-groups on the basis of some criterion or another and the same %ge of each sub-group behaves in the same way then this shows that the criterion used to select the sub-groups represents a non causal factor. Otherwise, the criterion used represent a causal factor at work.

Causal factor? Causal of what. You are talking bollocks.

The %ge of black people stopped who are black is, ummm let me think,just a moment, yes, yes... I got it. It is 100%.

Post by m***@btopenworld.comThink of a die being thrown. If it fall upon six say ten times in a row then that is an indication that the die is somehow loaded.

Yes imagine there is a coin and two plates. One plate is Ice cream andthe other is shit. People flip the coin and then choose to eat from oneof the plates. On average the people throw heads 50% of the timeregardless of what plate they eat from.

According to Mel statistics this means they are just as likely to eatshit as ice cream.

Post by Nick<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>---Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.Asked about concerns that people were being searched because of the colour of their skin, Dick said: “We need to fight that perception; we are absolutely not doing that. It has no place in modern policing. Our outcome rate – one in three positive – is the same whether you are black, white or whoever you are.”---As with much of what Cressida Dick says I don't understand this comment. She seems to think it implies something it doesn't.

Well I can't see why! It seems crystal clear to me.If the entire body of suspects subjected to stop and search then a certain proportion will yield a positive result i.e. will be found to be carrying something they shouldn't be.If the entire group were divided in to sub-groups (say black, white, brown, youth, adult etc.) and the results re-scrutinised then it would be found that exactly (more or less) the same proportion within any of these sub-groups will be found. >This is taken as evidence that the process of selecting candidates for a search is non-discriminatory in every respect.

It might be presented as such to deceive the feeble minded but theredoesn't seem to be any logical reason to believe it impliesnon-discrimination.

of course it does and it is a question of statistics rather than logic. If a certain %ge of a group behave in a certain way and then the group is divided into two sub-groups on the basis of some criterion or another and the same %ge of each sub-group behaves in the same way then this shows that the criterion used to select the sub-groups represents a non causal factor. Otherwise, the criterion used represent a causal factor at work.

Causal factor? Causal of what. You are talking bollocks.The %ge of black people stopped who are black is, ummm let me think,just a moment, yes, yes... I got it. It is 100%.

Post by m***@btopenworld.comThink of a die being thrown. If it fall upon six say ten times in a row then that is an indication that the die is somehow loaded.

Yes imagine there is a coin and two plates. One plate is Ice cream andthe other is shit. People flip the coin and then choose to eat from oneof the plates. On average the people throw heads 50% of the timeregardless of what plate they eat from.According to Mel statistics this means they are just as likely to eatshit as ice cream.That's right isn't it?

Well perhaps if they did not commit more crimes than white people theywould not be stopped so much.

Post by Nick<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>---Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.Asked about concerns that people were being searched because of the colourof their skin, Dick said: "We need to fight that perception; we areabsolutely not doing that. It has no place in modern policing. Our outcomerate - one in three positive - is the same whether you are black, white orwhoever you are."---As with much of what Cressida Dick says I don't understand this comment.She seems to think it implies something it doesn't.A high proportion of young people take drugs if the police randomly stoppeople it is likely that a significant proportion will have drugs on them.There may be no difference between how many young black people take drugsand how many white people take drugs but if you stop 6 times as many blackyouths you will end up with 6 times as many black people convicted forpossession of drugs.If she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crime I'msure she would be much less likely to alienate the black community if thepolice actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.

Post by Nick<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>---Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.Asked about concerns that people were being searched because of the colour of their skin, Dick said: “We need to fight that perception; we are absolutely not doing that. It has no place in modern policing. Our outcome rate – one in three positive – is the same whether you are black, white or whoever you are.”---As with much of what Cressida Dick says I don't understand this comment. She seems to think it implies something it doesn't.A high proportion of young people take drugs if the police randomly stop people it is likely that a significant proportion will have drugs on them.There may be no difference between how many young black people take drugs and how many white people take drugs but if you stop 6 times as many black youths you will end up with 6 times as many black people convicted for possession of drugs.If she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crime I'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black community if the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.

There is logic in what she is saying, but she can not really be said tobe proving her point.

Suppose 99% of whites wore a suit and tie, and had a zero chance ofcarrying a knife. 1% of whites wore backward baseball caps, and had a50% chance of carrying a knife. And suppose 99% of blacks wore backwardbaseball caps, and these also had a 50% chance of carrying a knife. The1% of blacks who wore suits had a negligible chance of carrying a knife.So the police ignore race and search everyone wearing a baseball cap,and get a 50% weapon rate in both races. The fact that blacks were beingsearched 99 times as often as whites would be caused not by racialprofiling but by clothing profiling.

Post by Basil JetThere is logic in what she is saying, but she can not really be said tobe proving her point.Suppose 99% of whites wore a suit and tie, and had a zero chance ofcarrying a knife. 1% of whites wore backward baseball caps, and had a50% chance of carrying a knife. And suppose 99% of blacks wore backwardbaseball caps, and these also had a 50% chance of carrying a knife. The1% of blacks who wore suits had a negligible chance of carrying a knife.So the police ignore race and search everyone wearing a baseball cap,and get a 50% weapon rate in both races. The fact that blacks were beingsearched 99 times as often as whites would be caused not by racialprofiling but by clothing profiling.

Except that the proportion of positive results in the whole group will be reflected in the proportions found in any sub-group which shows the basic selection criteria for selection for inclusion in any sub-group to be irrelevant.

For example if within the entire group 30% were found to produce positive results and one sub=group consisted of 100 baseball cap wearers and the other 200 non-baseball cap wearers the first sub=group would contain 30 positives (30 in 100) and in the second 60 positives (still 30 in every 100) and so sub-group membership would be irrelevant.

Post by Nick<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>---Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.Asked about concerns that people were being searched because of the colour of their skin, Dick said: “We need to fight that perception; we are absolutely not doing that. It has no place in modern policing. Our outcome rate – one in three positive – is the same whether you are black, white or whoever you are.”---As with much of what Cressida Dick says I don't understand this comment. She seems to think it implies something it doesn't.A high proportion of young people take drugs if the police randomly stop people it is likely that a significant proportion will have drugs on them.There may be no difference between how many young black people take drugs and how many white people take drugs but if you stop 6 times as many black youths you will end up with 6 times as many black people convicted for possession of drugs.If she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crime I'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black community if the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.

Post by Nick<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.

And with good reason. Black cops are often the most vocal about thedysfunctional ways of their own people. I’ve heard black officers say themost "racist" things against their own people, the kind of stuff that aWhite policeman could never get away with.

Blacks are so accustomed to contacts from the police, that when an officerarrives at their doorstep they are rarely surprised by it. A high percentageof these people are routinely contacted by law enforcement officers, and it’snot because the cops are "profiling" or "picking" on them either.

Rather, it’s because so many of them are engaged in criminal behavior, orcalling the police to report criminal behavior among their own people. Largenumbers of them are also on parole or county probation, so periodic"check-ups" by the cops becomes a normal way of life for them...

Post by Nick<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>---Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.

Figures also show that there is six times as much justification forstopping black people.- -

"We CAN hide forever."- Klaun Shittinb'ricks (1940 - ), acknowledging that he willNEVER prove where he infests or give his real jew name

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak outbecause I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the TradeUnionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a TradeUnionist. Then they came for the jews, and I did not speak outbecause I did not give a shit. Then they came for me and therewasn't a single commie bastard left to speak for me."- Martin Niemöller (1892 - 1984)

Post by Nick<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>---Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.

Figures also show that there is six times as much justification forstopping black people.

Figures show that your posts are at least six times stupider than those ofthe stupidest trolls, dumb anal Razovic!

--bosodeniro to dumb anal Razovic:"Are you a glutton for abuse or just fucking lonely?"Message-ID: <a7ee72c3-7388-4040-bc6a-***@googlegroups.com>